UK Defence Forum

jimthelad wrote:Not sure where to put this so here will do. MoD told to expect new boss tomorrow. Word has it that it may Liam Fox but he seems to feature in FCO briefing also.

Liam Fox has been given our N:o 1 defence priority: to extract us from the back of the queue
- now, what's the poll on whether it will be easier with Trump than with Obama?

hovematlot wrote:I thought HMS Queen Elizabeth was programmed in for months of trials off the US Eastern Seaboard in 2018. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mixture of UK and USMC aircraft involved. I don't think 617 Sqn is ready to go until 2019 so we have 2 years of first of class and aircraft trials for Queen Elizabeth

seaspear wrote:Are there likely to be early trials of the F35B on the carrier before the deployment of them to the carrier , just to confirm what was designed through the simulator and enable flight crews to practice its movement

Initial F-35B trials on QE are most likely to be the instrumented aircraft used in the USN trials as they test the ships systems with the Aircraft, after those have been completed and evaluated will we see some form of unit trials going off the US process, as they are due to do the trials on USS America next with the same aircraft from previous sea trials.

I have a feeling the 2018 date is just a diary date for the first F-35B sea trials abord a QEC, its another 5 years of Trials to operational deployment of the first squadron, so in between we'll likely see mix of UK/US aircraft in the US and UK as they work up the ship and the aircraft.

Look forward to the pictures

This talk of trials followed (much) later by actual service reminds me of the Sea Skua in 1982. When the Falklands issue erupted the Sea Skua was undergoing initial trials. Overnight the trials Lynx and the available Sea Skua missiles were put on the task force, only to prove dramatically successful (7 hits out if 7 launches IIRC). Since then I have always thought that in the case of national emergency whatever is in trials is essentially available!

Old RN wrote:This talk of trials followed (much) later by actual service reminds me of the Sea Skua in 1982. When the Falklands issue erupted the Sea Skua was undergoing initial trials. Overnight the trials Lynx and the available Sea Skua missiles were put on the task force, only to prove dramatically successful (7 hits out if 7 launches IIRC). Since then I have always thought that in the case of national emergency whatever is in trials is essentially available!

Trial by fire, during the Vietnam war that's where a lot of US equipment was trialed no better place than real world conditions ( not intending to sound callous either)

Old RN wrote:This talk of trials followed (much) later by actual service reminds me of the Sea Skua in 1982. When the Falklands issue erupted the Sea Skua was undergoing initial trials. Overnight the trials Lynx and the available Sea Skua missiles were put on the task force, only to prove dramatically successful (7 hits out if 7 launches IIRC). Since then I have always thought that in the case of national emergency whatever is in trials is essentially available!

Same with the TIALD pod in Op Granby and Storm Shadow in 2003. Same with the much missed ALARM missile.

Timmymagic wrote:

Old RN wrote:This talk of trials followed (much) later by actual service reminds me of the Sea Skua in 1982. When the Falklands issue erupted the Sea Skua was undergoing initial trials. Overnight the trials Lynx and the available Sea Skua missiles were put on the task force, only to prove dramatically successful (7 hits out if 7 launches IIRC). Since then I have always thought that in the case of national emergency whatever is in trials is essentially available!

Same with the TIALD pod in Op Granby and Storm Shadow in 2003. Same with the much missed ALARM missile.

Yup, it did miss a lot

I was under the impression it was the best ARM in the world until withdrawal. This came from the guys who fired it and the USN who wanted to buy it. It was fired as a suppression missile in GW2 to keep the SA8 and ZSU23-4 offline while the TLAM's went in and also for direct attack in Kosovo. IIRC several dozen HARM were fired at a SA-6 unit which was troublesome before it was taken out with ALARM on a single round at the first attempt. I agree that multi-spectrum emitters are a problem but most fire control units are at a much lower frequency than the average Nokia.

jimthelad wrote:I agree that multi-spectrum emitters are a problem

Not only jumping frequencies, but being networked, they only need to come on for a v short period before the next one takes over (and the fused airspace picture can stil be maintained)

Ron5 wrote:

Timmymagic wrote:

Old RN wrote:This talk of trials followed (much) later by actual service reminds me of the Sea Skua in 1982. When the Falklands issue erupted the Sea Skua was undergoing initial trials. Overnight the trials Lynx and the available Sea Skua missiles were put on the task force, only to prove dramatically successful (7 hits out if 7 launches IIRC). Since then I have always thought that in the case of national emergency whatever is in trials is essentially available!

Same with the TIALD pod in Op Granby and Storm Shadow in 2003. Same with the much missed ALARM missile.

Yup, it did miss a lot

Here's one that missed. Recovered by the Serbs and in a Belgrade museum:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zongo/5538 ... otostream/

Came down by parachute all the way?
- would have thought there was a self-destruct mechanism in place (but nothing is fail-safe in this world)?

Some of my more recent musings on the QEs and carriers in general:

http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk/ ... 8.html?m=1

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Came down by parachute all the way?
- would have thought there was a self-destruct mechanism in place (but nothing is fail-safe in this world)?

Missed radar, landed in a marsh.

Ron5 wrote:Missed radar, landed in a marsh

Given that one mode of operation for Alarm is to be fired ahead of your attacking aircraft then deploying a parachute to slowly descend while searching for any radars that may transmit. If a radar does transmit, it attacks it. If not it has still achieved its purpose by preventing such transmissions while your aircraft passes safely through the area. Given the very limited amount of damage to the missile it must have descended all the way by parachute, so I think we can assume this was its mode of operation. It didn't "miss" at all.

whitelancer wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Missed radar, landed in a marsh

Given that one mode of operation for Alarm is to be fired ahead of your attacking aircraft then deploying a parachute to slowly descend while searching for any radars that may transmit. If a radar does transmit, it attacks it. If not it has still achieved its purpose by preventing such transmissions while your aircraft passes safely through the area. Given the very limited amount of damage to the missile it must have descended all the way by parachute, so I think we can assume this was its mode of operation. It didn't "miss" at all.

Ha ha. Nice try.

Not much in the way of marshland in that particular conflict. Most of the troublesome SAM's were SA8/ SA6 in the valleys to stop terrain masking approaches.

Ron5 wrote:Ha ha. Nice try.

Ron5 wrote:Ha ha. Nice try.

Ron to be fair, and not wanting to derail the QE thead, all the reports I've ever seen were glowing about the ALARM's performance, in contract to that of the HARM's. The only bad thing I've read about it, is that it was surprisingly not very low drag carried externally. Have you seen any reports about it's effectiveness elsewhere?

QE's float out date was 17th July 2014, 2 years and 2 days ago. Is QE likely to need a hull clean beneath the waterline before sea trials?

Timmymagic wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Ha ha. Nice try.

Ron5 wrote:Ha ha. Nice try.

Ron to be fair, and not wanting to derail the QE thead, all the reports I've ever seen were glowing about the ALARM's performance, in contract to that of the HARM's. The only bad thing I've read about it, is that it was surprisingly not very low drag carried externally. Have you seen any reports about it's effectiveness elsewhere?

Nah. Just some scurrilous tales about the Serbs spoofing Alarms by setting up transmitters in fields and the Belgrade museum claiming it got the Alarm out of a marsh. Bloody Europeans, always making stuff up. Can't be trusted.

SKB wrote:QE's float out date was 17th July 2014, 2 years and 2 days ago. Is QE likely to need a hull clean beneath the waterline before sea trials?

SKB, I try to keep current, by reading this thread, and before that being a lurker on Mp.nets mega thread. I seem to remember that they had run the engines under load with the trial propellers. Has that work concluded now? Have they fitted or begun to fit the full propeller set?

Testing has been done with the trial propeller blades. As far as I know those blades are still fitted. They can be replaced by divers, so no need to go into dry dock for that.

Engaging Strategy wrote:Some of my more recent musings on the QEs and carriers in general: <br abp="345"><br abp="346">http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk/ ... 8.html?m=1

You cover a lot of the arguments for the chosen size of carrier, but there are even more, such as:
(1) The larger deck space gives room to rearm and refuel the F-35, conduct take off and landing, and operate helicopters all at the same time (within reasonable constraints) effectively allowing more sorties per aircraft.
(2) The larger ship space allows for adaptation to a wider range of roles, such as LPH, with the potential to operate enough Chinooks to deliver a whole company of marines in one wave.
(3) The F35-B has more than twice the wing area of the Harrier and so needs a bigger deck.
(4) The larger ship has greater potential for adaptation to future aircraft and future roles.
(5) Last, but far from least, it is a more effective deterrent.

SKB wrote:QE's float out date was 17th July 2014, 2 years and 2 days ago. Is QE likely to need a hull clean beneath the waterline before sea trials?

Quick answer: Yes.
Detailed answer: The method of cleaning will need to be decided.
Divers and "other" methods could be used, however the simplest method is to re-dock her and have a quick clean (changing brake-blades for correct service blades if needed).

A clean hull will be needed if a true hull form and efficiency baseline is needed to be established...

The days of barnacles and other creatures attaching themselves to ships hulls is rapidly disappearing due to anti foul coatings and paints, but for sure the hull will need to be checked after sitting there for quite a while. I don't see a need for dry docking unless the paint is damaged below the waterline.

Forth Bridges by Ordnance Survey (click to zoom). Might QE pass through the new bridge before its fully spanned?!